Abortion rhetoric at DNC criticized for failure to respect women
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
Maureen Ferguson of The Catholic Association
Through the use of degrading language and extreme claims, speakers at the Democratic National Convention failed to respect women, said a senior policy adviser for The Catholic Association.
Maureen Ferguson told CNA on Sept. 10 that the “vision of womanhood” presented by abortion advocates at the Democratic convention in Charlotte, N.C., last week was both “limited” and “demeaning.”
“Women’s rights are defined by a right to kill one’s own child,” she said.
Ferguson contrasted this view with Church teaching on “authentic womanhood” and the “feminine genius” discussed by Pope John Paul II.
“The Catholic Church provides a beautiful vision of womanhood,” she said, explaining that rather than being restrictive, the Church presents “an integrated view of our fertility” that is respectful of women and does not treat pregnancy as a disease.
At a Sept. 4 Planned Parenthood rally that coincided with the Democratic convention, women demanded respect for their rights, focusing on the “right” to abortion and free birth control.
The rally was not an official convention event, but it featured many of the same speakers who addressed the full convention gathering as well.
One speaker at the rally referred to herself as a “b-tch for choice,” drawing loud applause from the audience. Numerous women wore “sluts vote” buttons.
Ferguson said that this behavior “absolutely undermines their message” by failing to treat themselves as women with respect and dignity. [More]
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
May 21, 2013 1:32
Church Whistle-Blowers Join Forces on Abuse
-
May 20, 2013 5:17
Maine Catholic church closing its doors
-
May 20, 2013 5:14
Muslim leaders in US facing challenges inside and outside the faith
-
May 17, 2013 5:43
Archbishop clarifies remarks about Cuomo
-
May 17, 2013 5:40
Fr. Gary Meier goes public with clergy experience
-
May 17, 2013 5:37
Predator priests paid to pray for unsuspecting families
-
May 16, 2013 1:56
Cleanup of Bridgeport, Conn., diocese begins in earnest
-
May 16, 2013 1:38
Archbishop Presses Cuomo Over Abortion
-
May 16, 2013 1:26
Deal reached in Catholic lawsuit
-
May 16, 2013 1:13
N.Y. matriarch moves closer to sainthood
47 Comments
Iesous is a translation of the Hebrew “Josha” meaning ‘Jehovah’ is salvation’. ie, ‘is the Saviour’ a common name among Jews, eg. Ex 17:9, Luke 3:29, Col.4:11 It was given to the Son of God in Incarnation as His personal name, in obedience to the command of an angel to Joseph, the husband of His Mother Mary shortly before He was born Matt.1:21 By it He is spoken of throughout the Gospels….spelled Jehovah…Jesus
Sorry the above comment was to give information to our friend Tony. (8:15am)
Catholic Lady, very often I type a comment on an iPad, I am not the best typer in the world, and I’m sometimes and even worse speller, Please bear with me.
typest
I know Tony, you are not the only one that makes errors in typing as you probably noticed I had neglected to put the U in Joshua but I thought you might like the information. However you probably already knew this. Sorry, I did not mean to offend..Blessings
Pregnancy may not be a disease, but it can cause suffering and death. I have watched a young friend battle for her life for months this summer and if she survives she will have a life long struggle and need a heart transplant. All this because of her pregnancy. She chose to have a baby, but many women would not be willing to take that risk. The Catholic church and the Republican party would not allow her that option if they had their way. Don’t tell me or her family the church “respects women” or ” respects life”.
When Row v. Wade was made the law of the land by the Supremes, the purpose was to stop making criminals out of women who procured abortions. Women throughout history have always had them — back alley abortions or rich peoples’ abortions, etc. It used to be that women could be arrested and thrown into jail for having an abortion. They were seen as criminals by the legal system. What Roe v. Wade did was de-criminalize the act and the women involved. It was never meant to be a license to go out and have an abortion. It was never meant to “promote” abortion. This needs to be clarified because so many younger people don’t know this.
Recovering; I think it was also seen as a way of protecting women from those who took advantage of unwanted pregnancies ie:the back street butchers whose victims sometimes bled to death after a botched abortion…Abortion is wrong! To take a life is against God’s Law, thou shell not kill..as for me and mine we will follow the Church’s teachings.
Yes, it did protect women going forward; however, some women find themselves in desperate situations and can’t be held totally responsible for the pressure that lead them to have an abortion. At least women weren’t seen as “criminals” anymore. For that reason alone, although abortion is wrong, the law should actually be upheld so as not to make women criminals again.
I’m sorry recovering women who find themselves in desperate situations still have choices and they are responsible for making right or wrong choices. However I am not anyones judge…I will leave judgment to the One who can and will judge the heart and motives of not just women but of all mankind.
Recovering; I’m wondering if your Parish has an outreach for women who find themselves in such desperate situations. The ladies of my Parish are affiliated with an organization which helps women who are between a rock and a hard place..offering a place to live,food, help in continuing their education, baby clothes etc. If you do not already have something in place, perhaps you Recovering could help to start something. I think that you really do care for others.
Recovering, The ladies of the Parish knit little sweaters etc. and/or purchase baby clothes and baby supplies as gifts. Every spring the Woman’s League holds a “Baby Shower” and a representative of the organization attends on behalf of the ladies.
I disagree, Recovering. After Roe v Wade, the abortion rate in the USA went through the roof — so, it lead to hundreds of thousands more babies being killed. Second, not making it illegal sends the wrong message to all of society — that life is cheap, and man is God as the arbiter of life and death. Roe v Wade was a horrific legal and moral mistake.
Jim, you are wrong.
Your statement has no basis in fact. A little common sense tells you there is no reliable data on the number of abortions when it was illegal.
Maybe I am wrong.
What data do you have?
Hey Dennis missed you.
Not true, Dennis. While there might not be precise data on the number of abortions prior to Roe v Wade, I don’t believe anyone in either camnp would dispute that the abortion rate rose dramatically after Roe. Further, this is just common sense — people generally follow the path of least resistance, and when you make abortion legal and safer, it follows that it will be procured more often. Get your head out of rocket fuel and into the game, Dennis.
Jim.
We agree you have no facts.
You can’t legislate morality.
I experienced the days when it was illegal. It still happened. It was just more dangerous for all.
Making it illegal does not make it go away!
Dennis — my, my how you twist my words. Perhaps you’ve been exposed to too much rocket fuel in your days? We did NOT agree that I have no facts. I do have facts, just not precise facts. Again, people on both sides agree the rate of abortion rose dramatically in the USA after Roe. And, look at the “facts” you bring to the table — “it still happened.” Wow, Dennis, you and I both know that’s called anecdotal data. Who cares what your experience was? I care what hte overall rate in the general population was — and again, the Roe ruling increased the number of babies killed every year in this country by hundreds of thousands. Anyone who supports Roe has zero compassion and is NOT a sensitive person — you don’t favor killing babies if you are sensitive and compassionate. Get your head out of the rocket fuel and into the game.
Sir Jim, if you have any facts to support anything – really doesn’t matter what the subject is. I would just like to see you present a logical argument.
You might go rogue and try presenting the US abortion rate over time.
Or give us some insight into that fantasy world you live in. Like why “There are no poor in America.”
Any logical sequence of thought will be fine.
Dennis — I’m sorry you’re having difficulty identifying a logical sequence of thought — perhaps your logic detector is on the blink? Perhaps you accidently loaded it onto a rocket to Mars? The observation that people follow the path of least resistance is completely rational and logical. So, without any data, that argument alone supports my position. It’s funny, but Catholic Lady had to problem seeing that logic in her response to my post. I like you Dennis (I just kid you about you having your head in rocket fuel), but, mano to mano, sin distorts one’s perception. The fact that you can’t see my logical argument against Roe makes me think your vision is pretty distorted.
JIM!!!
A fact, just one fact to back-up anything you say.
My kingdom for a fact.
Dennis — RU drinking rocket fuel tonight? On one of your prior posts, you said, “forget the facts, just give me a logical argument.” So, I give you a logical argument, but you don’t acknowledge it — you just say “give me the facts.” Do you acknowledge that I gave you a logical, rational argument for my position?
To clarify that last post, Dennis — first you ask for facts. So I give you facts, and you say, “forget the facts, give me a logical argument.” So, I give you a logical argument, and then you say, “forget the logical argument, give me some facts.” First, Dennis, before we move further in this thread, please acknowledge that I gave you a credible, logical argument for my position.
Jim, I said:
“Sir Jim, if you have any facts to support anything – really doesn’t matter what the subject is. I would just like to see you present a logical argument.”
Try again.
So Dennis, did I or did I not present a logical argument in my 8:48 P.M. post?
Dennis — that is a yes or no question. Either I did or I did not present a logical argument. And you say what? That I did, or I did not?
Jim, sorry about the delay in getting back to you. You said:
“So Dennis, did I or did I not present a logical argument in my 8:48 P.M. post?”
No the argument that “when you make abortion legal and safer, it follows that it will be procured more often “ is INSANE!
Legality and safety are minor concerns to the woman that is faced with this horrific decision.
But I am not a woman and maybe I am wrong. I am sure Jim that you know what is best in every situation.
Jim, I agree that people generally follow the path of least resistance or take what they think is the easy way out. But – for those who decide to carry their baby to term – we the Church must reach out to them and give them a helping had – not a hand-out but a hand-up. In doing so we may be able to save not only the unborn baby but the mother’s soul as well.
Totally agree, Catholic Lady. I have supported charities in the past that provide this exact help to unwed pregnant women. Pro-lifers often get accused of just caring about the baby prior to the baby’s birth, and being insensitive to the baby after birth and to the mother. Neither of those biases are accurate. Everyone I know who is pro-life cares about both the baby and the mother both before and after birth.
Please read Roe decision, It nullified the law in one state; it left it open for ststes to legislate; none did, for years. The decision set general standards, having interviewed theologians of all faiths, and it concluded that the state had little obligation in the first trimester, , and paramount concern in the third.
Well if you lie down with snakes you better plan on getting bit. This is another classic example of the church showing their lack of vision by always supporting the democrats and thinking they will do the right thing. It is no wonder they don’t respect women and they don’t respect anyone that is not on welfare.
A co-worker who shared with me that she is a Presbyterian (not active) and putting aside the sex abuse scandle) she said that the Catholic church was always hated because of its moral stands but was always respected. You were a moral voice and conscience for the world. Catholics cause us to Think, reflect and see the larger picture. Tony, the goverment has legislated it morality in that killing the unborn is acceptable, and must be paid for my and your taxes. As for the Jahover Wittnesses, when Obama get rid of the catholic church which is his greatest threat to his socialism, atheist agenda, he will come after the Jahover Wittnesses, the Jews will have to serve ham sandwichs in theit deli’s
You can’t put aside the sex abuse it is perhaps one of the greates evil acts of the institutional church that has brought it to its knees. The transferring of these horrible men, and the coverup by the bishops has caused incredible pain and sufferings.
It has also caused the church to no longer be a credible voice for morality.
Abortion today is seen wheather we like it or not as a woman’s right and a privates decision between her and her doctor. That’s the way it is like it or not. We can teach one another about the beauty of life even in the womb, but we won’t be able to legislate it anymore.
Tony, I could agree with you that some bishops, who are responsible for perpetuating the sexual abuse of children, have lost their moral authority. However, the Church has taught that abortion, homosexual acts, sexual abuse of children, sex outside marriage, etc. are wrong. You condemn an entire Church for the actions of some. Why? In your life where does moral authority come from?
I did not condemn the church I said the bishops have lost their moral authority. Nobody gives a rats behind what they say. They lost it.
Tony you said: “It has also caused the church to no longer be a credible voice for morality.”
OK, since the bishops are the leaders of the church (traditionally and scripturally)you are saying that since the leaders have lost their moral authority, “that has caused the church to no longer be a creditable voice for morality.”
So do those millions of faithful (and hundreds of non-offending bishops)just throw out all previous teaching on morality b/c of these offending bishops? That’s hard to accept. In your opinion, then, how do church leaders (bishops) become “a creditable voice for morality”?
Seems to me they do exactly what Dolan is doing —— proclaim the truth as it has always been taught by the church. Another option would be do ‘give in’ to the attitude that since so many other bishops have erred, and as a group we have no credibility, every bishop must do nothing – stop proclaiming the truth —– fold up and go away.
What do you want the bishops (whose authority goes back to the apostles and Jesus) to do in order to once again be (since they lost it) “a credible voice for morality”? Is there a point where you can trust their moral authority again? How do we get past the wounds some have caused in your opinion? Because this has indeed hurt deeply!
The sin of Judas did not stop the other 11 from proclaiming the gospel and teachings of Jesus.
To clarify: I, Jim — the one who spars with Tony — did not post any of the above comments. This is my first post today. However, I like what the other Jim is saying. Maybe Jims are just faithful Catholics, huh?
My point is the bishops can and will spout all the morality they can, all the morality they want. Very few LISTEN… Witness the Obama bumper stickers in the church parking lots. Look at all of our fellow Catholics who don’t know the Religious Freedom Concerns of the Bishops. look T all the Catholics who don’t give a rats behind of what the bishops say or do.
Hi Tony- Thanks for responding. (I am the original Jim from today’s article; not the Jim who usually spars with you.)
I hear what you are saying about Catholics listening or not heeding the Bishops concerns. These things make me sad and angry (especially the public statements of some “Catholics” in the Kennedy family, Sibelius, Pelosi, Biden, Durbin, etc.). Even so, the bishops can not stop speaking out, and they can not bear this burden alone. Jesus said He would spew the lukewarm from His mouth. I pray we are not lukewarm.
We absolutely must confront Church leaders when they are hurting the Church, but it does not help His Church to lump all bishops together and not support those speaking His Truth guided by the Holy Spirit. My observation to you is to consider that you are hurting the church when speaking against bishops proclaiming Catholic teaching. It helps the likes of those “Catholics” speaking against the Church’s teaching (Pelosi, Biden, some Kennedys, Durbin, Sibelius, etc.) If you spoke against these public officials speaking against church teaching I could better understand where you stand.
Jim, t is my belief that the bishops and the priests are viewed as so tarnished, they are lumped together by the media, and no one listens to the or cares what they say. The emphasis is on the bishop who drives drunk, the bishop who is caught with child porn and the bishop who covers up sexual acts of priests. The average person won’t listen to the good bisops for a long time.
Jim who often spars with Tony you may want to put the first initial of your last name or G to identify yourself.
What would the G stand for, Tony?
It was just a letter I picket.
Okay — I thought maybe it referred to “GOOD” Jim.
You gotta admit, Tony, Jim K had some excellent points, and he posts in a very kind way.
The Roman church once controlled both the spiritual and temporal destinies of a large chunk of Europe. Nowadays that control is restricted to about 108.7 acres of downtown Rome, give or take a few basilicas. The proposition is that one can be perfectly faithful to God and the Christian Gospels without subscribing to the subtleties of papal politics, much less swearing a loyalty oath to maintaining the doctrinal status quo.
At this point, when so many individuals have accepted abortion and other life issues it might be wise if the Church stopped trying to legislate its restrictive views on abortion and instruct us on the sanctity of life.
Can you imagine how we would react if the Jahover Wittnesses tried to pass legislation to outlaw blood transfusions?